<p>Either way, an endowment under $50,000/student will find it hard to compete with the big boys. The $1.5 billion may be UT's endowment in Canadian $.</p>
<p>CalX, I agree that the correlation between funding and qualityof education is not linear. But there is a limit. I agree that Toronto and McGill have superior faculties, but there must be a degree of resources availlable to accomodate undergrads and I think that their lack of funding really hurts their undergrads. I definitely think that the educational level at those two universities is excellent, but making it into the top 20 list of UNDERGRADUATE institutions in North America is stretching it if you ask me. Let me put it another way, which of the following undergraduate institutions would you remove in favor of UT or McGill?</p>
<p>Amherst College
Brown University
California Institute of Technology
Carnegie Mellon University
Columbia University
Cornell University
Dartmouth College
Duke University
Harvard University
Johns Hopkins University
Massaschusetts Institute of Technology
Northwestern University
Princeton University
Stanford University
Swarthmore College
University of California-Berkeley
University of Chicago
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
University of Pennsylvania
Williams College
Yale University</p>
<p>That's a good way to frame the question. There are only a few I would remove on that list for McGill, like Brown or Amherst. But less than half of the colleges on that list are as well-balanced as McGill, which has a broad liberal arts curriculum (including a great music dept), strong environmental/bio research, sciences and engineering, so that puts its above some of the LACs or the less stellar technical institutes listed (say CMU or maybe even JHU.) 15th-17th sounds about right on that list.</p>
<p>Similarly Alexandre (and others), how, specifically, does "lack of resources/funding" negatively affect the quality of the undergraduate experience? What are specific examples of lack of funding reducing the quality of the education, and to what extent does this really happen?</p>
<p>Class size for example, is touted as the panacea to a high quality education, both at the secondary and collegiate levels, yet findings in California public high schools for example (where class size reductions were mandated) have shown (from what i've read recently) that the correlation is not that strong. My own high school, which is one of the top schools in France, had fairly large class sizes and low budgets compared to most American high schools (~40 students per class, pretty low faculty to student ratio, zero access/interaction with faculty, zero extracurriculars, sparse grounds) yet the quality of the education was phenomenal. Some of my teachers were truly remarkable (including teachers who went on to become inducted in the Acad</p>
<p>I definitely agree with you that the myth that class size and a faculty dedicated purely to undergrads is completely faulty a premise to start with. Education, particularly at the university level, is a personal endeavour. Faculty is there to assist, nothing more. That is why I think that schools like Cal and Michigan are as good as they come, in spite of having slightly larger classes than their private counterparts.</p>
<p>Maclean's offers an overall ranking of Canadian universities offering medical and doctoral degrees. This is the category into which Toronto, McGill, Queen's, Western, and UBC fall. However, the ranking only evaluates the undergraduate experience</p>
<p>Toronto clocks in at #1, with McGill at #2. </p>
<p>Though I am American, I attended the University of Toronto, and had friends who attended Western, UBC, Queens, and McGill. It's important to realize that funding for schools varies from province ot province. (Just as it does for healthcare, incidentally.) Because the Quebec govt does not devote nearly as much $$$ to higher/tertiary education as Ontario and BC do, McGill is forced to recruit foreign students who pay with cash or their country's financial aid resources.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Peachy, I have to agree with CalX here. I made the naive assumption that Canada would not be too different from the United States; however, the cultureshock I experienced when I moved there from the northeast was considerable. However, I won't make any judgements regarding its "sophistication" levels; I think each country (and region, for that matter) ought to be taken on its own terms. </p></li>
<li><p>I would say that the University of Toronto tends to be better thought of among academics and internationals. At my h.s., v. few of my fellow students (or their parents, for that matter) knew of UT. However, my teachers and summer profs all thought highly of it. It is also less expensive than McGill and enjoys less of a "party school" reputation. However, it was not a good fit for me as a (very young) undergraduate.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I don't think the Montreal universities have been underfunded. They've been on a remarkably aggressive building campaign in the past half decade or so. Billions in new facilities downtown between McG, Concordia, UQAM and UdeMontreal.</p>
<p>pip, you've got to agree that as far as downtown Montreal is concerned, that sophistication factor is pretty high. If you felt a culture shock in Toronto, Montreal would have been even greater. A side note, but somewhat telling, consider all the great pop music that's coming out of Montreal and Toronto lately (Arcade Fire, Metric, New pornographers, Stars, Stills, the Dears, Death From Above, Silver Mt Zion, Pink Mountaintops, Malajube...) It seems that they almost account for the majority of the good new stuff in N. America (the bad stuff like Lavigne and Celine is for export...)</p>
<p>What was your UT experience like pip? Not a good fit because of size (63,000?) or big city?</p>
<p>One thing to keep in mind about tuition in CDA: the canadian dollar is going to continue rising, up to parity with the US$.</p>
<p>No, I didn't mind the big city part. Toronto's the most diverse city in the world, according to the UN; and I enjoyed that. It was the large class sizes that got me as a freshman. Also, I lived far from campus in a hotel on the other side of town .b.c my dorm was being renovated. </p>
<p>I love much Canadiana; however I always thought the New Pornograpjers were from Vancouver. You should also try the Constantines, Most Serene Republic; as well as solo Neko Case, though I realize she is now of Chicago.</p>
<p>I never went to Montreal; I had friends who went to McGill and liked it there. I don't know if cultureshock was the right word, it was just different, and it was obvious that I was American. But not in the I wear fanny packs, eat the wrong way, litter, and talk like a game show host kind of way. More in the I'm a little inconsiderate but I have good intentions and I talk a little too loud and cut in front of you in line sort of way.</p>
<p>Yes the New P.s are from Vancouver, as are the Pink Mountaintops. But both come to TO and Montreal fairly often, it's part of the same scene. The US indie scene is realtively smaller, it tends to be overshadowed by hip-hop, rap, R&B and the Brittneys. The indie scene in Canada is not nearly as marginal.</p>
<p>Toronto has the highest % of foreign born residents of any big city in the world, that accounts for the diversity index. Montreal's rate is only a little lower, but it is definitely more diverse by virtue of the bicultural/bilingual nature of its original dwellers. It's also home to more artists per capita than TO because it is cheaper. Kind of like Brooklyn has become relative to Manhattan.</p>
<p>McGill is half as big as UT, so not nearly as bad with the class sizes. Pretty small campus.</p>
<p>I don't know; have you looked at some of Brooklyn's rents lately? Most artistic individuals have long bolted to smaller/less exp. cities altogether. No matter what borough they were living in.</p>
<p>It's always a moving target, Brooklyn is indeed gentrifying (but still cheaper than Manhattan). Same urban dynamics in SF, with the Mission District/Hayes Valley getting expensive (but still cheaper than the Marina or Rissin Hill) and the artists moving to Oakland or Alameda.</p>
<p>I think that ranking McGill lower than Cornell would definitely be BIASED.</p>
<p>OK. Let's put it this way. For Americans, Cornell might be better known, but for us, Europeans, definitely McGill is known much better than Cornell, and is known to be prestigious also.</p>
<p>Top 15 is a good place for McGill. And in terms of the quality of faculty, it is probably somewhere in top 10.</p>
<p>Also, in terms of placement, McGill would be in top 10 for sure.</p>
<p>In Canada, one of the world's largest economies, McGill has maybe one or two other schools to compete while in the US, Cornell has to compete with all bigger names. Plus, McGill has international reputation.</p>
<p>Cornell is more internationally recognized than McGill. I just Graduated from an international school in DC and I can assure you that no one there puts McGill over Cornell, that includes faculty from all over europe. </p>
<p>It's crazy to put McGill alongside Ivy league schools, tell me what are McGills academic strong points? Medicine is maybe the most known but what else? Cornell's endowment is over $3.8 Billion for about 20,000 students whereas McGill has about $750 Million for over 30,000. There as much more opportunities and recources at a place like Cornell. The only reason I would consider taking McGill over Cornell is cost.</p>
<p>I don't know about placement but I stilll say between 30 and 40 on USNEWS, probably more around 32-34.</p>
<p>But I think we have to also see McGill as a "big fish in a small pond", that pond being Canada. Of course McGill will have international prestige, because it is the top Canadian univeristy. However, in the US would it be able to distinguish itself from the other American schools? I don't think so. That is why you can not put McGill on the same level as an Ivy league school like Brown or Cornell. It would probably be in the upper 20s-30s. A lesser Michigan if you will.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I definitely agree with you that the myth that class size and a faculty dedicated purely to undergrads is completely faulty a premise to start with. Education, particularly at the university level, is a personal endeavour. Faculty is there to assist, nothing more. That is why I think that schools like Cal and Michigan are as good as they come, in spite of having slightly larger classes than their private counterparts.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not to get off topic, but I completely disagree with this statement. The only part I agree with is that education is personal. However, what if you can't function up to your potential in an environment with 500 students in your lecture class? You are severely understating the importance of the teacher to student relationship. Since education is personal the SCHOOL varies with the individual. Personally, I wouldn't be able to deal with a large school such as UNC-CH (which I visited) or Arizona State, UCLA, Michigan, etc. Although the school I'm attending is more of a liberal arts school, I will have other opportunities, so this is perfect for me.</p>
<p>wave, your class size take ("500 students in your lecture class") is mostly myth. At Cal, only 7% of classes have more than 100 students, and 74% have less than 30 students. I'm not sure about other big universities but at Cal, class sizes are very reasonable.</p>
<p>Willmingtonwave, I never had a class with more than 300 students at Michigan, and I only had 3 such classes (all during my freshman year and out of 45 classes I took at Michigan). My friends at schools like Columbia, Cornell, Stanford etc... all had classes of similar size their Freshmen year too. Most of my classes at Michigan had fewer than 30 students. Michigan is obviously more of an exception than a rule, but Cal and UVA are similar. LACs do indeed have smaller classes, but research universities, private or public, will have larger classes no matter what. That's what I mean by myth. And Willmingtonwave, I had a couple of classes at Michigan with fewer than 10 students...and I did not learn more in those classes than I did on classes with over 200 students. I guess I need to learn on my own. Professors can help when I need it, but even when I took classes with over 200 students, professors were always availlable to answer my questions.</p>
<p>Canada has a population of 33 million and the U.S. population is over 300 million. McGill has a world-class reputation and probably great professors and academics. However, in terms of selectivity, sheer demographics would point to much lower stats for a McGill applicant than for an average applicant to a top 30 (in terms of selectivity) school in the U.S.</p>
<p>"It's crazy to put McGill alongside Ivy league schools, [tell me what are McGills academic strong points?] Medicine is maybe the most known but what else? Cornell's endowment is over $3.8 Billion for about 20,000 students whereas McGill has about $750 Million for over 30,000. There as much more opportunities and recources at a place like Cornell. The only reason I would consider taking McGill over Cornell is cost."</p>
<p>Ummm...Engineering. My dad's company recruits at McGill, and has an office on Sherbrooke.</p>
<p>Straight endowment figures are a very poor indicator here. Canadian universities receive a lot of corporate research grants and public funding (provincial and federal.)</p>
<p>Furthermore, there are many other factors that mitigate funding that make a school like McGill punch way above its weight in terms of funding.</p>
<p>Sebma, McGill's international rep is far stronger than Cornell. McGill is very good at many subjects, business, engineering, sciences, bio/med but also music and arts. The best of Canada > the second tier in the US (#25 through 50).</p>